FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Mark P. Kostak,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-372

 

Plainville Board of Education

 

                        Respondent                  August 25, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 25, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Docket #FIC 92-298 was consolidated for hearing with the above captioned matter.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated November 18, 1992, the complainant requested of the respondent access to records regarding thirteen specific items.

 

            3.  By letters dated November 30, 1992 and December 15, 1992, the respondent provided the complainant with certain records and claimed that the records so provided were responsive to six items of the complainant's thirteen item request (hereinafter item #s 1 through 13).

 

            4.  However, having failed to receive all the records requested, the complainant appealed to the Commission by letter dated December 17, 1992 and filed with the Commission on

December 18, 1992.

 

            5.  It is found that prior to the hearing in this matter the respondent provided the complainant with certain records that are responsive to item #s 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 of the complainant's request for records.

 

            6.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant withdrew his complaint to the Commission with respect to item #s 12 and 13 of his records request.  In addition, the parties arrived at an agreement regarding possible settlement of the complaint with respect to item #s 2, 5 and 11 of the complainant's records

 

Docket #FIC 92-372                             Page 2

 

request.  The agreement provided that the respondent would provide the complainant with records responsive to item #s 2 and 5 of his records request, and also that the respondent would search its files and provide the complainant with records responsive to item # 11 of the records request, if such records exist.

 

            7.  Following the hearing in this matter and pursuant to the agreement described in paragraph 6, above, the complainant informed the Commission that the respondent provided him with records responsive to item #s 2, 5 and 11 of his request.

 

            8.  Consequently, access to records responsive to item #s 6, 9 and 10 of the complainant's request remain at issue.  These items relate to the following records:

 

                        Item # 6:  The names, ages, sexes and years of teaching experience when hired, of all individuals who were employed as an art teacher by the respondent board over the past fifteen years, the location they were assigned and their dates of employment;

 

                        Item # 9:  The names and addresses of all individuals who are either employed by the respondent or the Town of Plainville, or who are members of the respondent, who are related by blood or marriage to any individuals hired for any art teaching position for the 1992-93 school year or substitute art teacher for the remainder of the 1991-92 school year; and

 

                        Item # 10:  The names and addresses of all individuals who are either employed by the respondent board or the Town of Plainville, or who are members of the respondent, who know the individuals hired as art teachers, as described in item # 9, above.

 

            9.  Section 1-19(a), G. S., provides in relevant part:

 

                                    Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency...shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.

 

            10.  With respect to the complainant's request for records, described in paragraph 8, item # 6 above, it is found that the respondent does maintain records in its files that are responsive to this request.  It is also found that the respondent neither alleged nor proved that such records are exempt from disclosure under any provision of the Freedom of

 

Docket #FIC 92-372                             Page 3

 

Information Act.

 

            11.  With respect to the complainant's request for records, described in paragraph 8, item #s 9 and 10, above, it is found that no records responsive to these requests exist.

 

            12.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G. S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with access to the records more fully described in paragraph 8, item # 6, above.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed with respect to the

complainant's request for records, described in paragraph 8,

item #s 9 and 10 of the findings, above.

 

            2.  Within fifteen days of the mailing of the final decision in this matter, the respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of all records responsive to his request, as more particularly described in paragraph 8, item # 6 of the findings, above.

 

            3.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the open records provisions of 1-15 and 1-19, G.S.

 

            4.  The Commission wishes to remind the respondent that under the Freedom of Information Act there is no requirement that reasons be stated for record requests.  The Commission also reminds the respondent of its authority to issue civil penalties for the denial of Freedom of Information rights without reasonable grounds.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 25, 1993.

 

                                                                             

                                                Debra L. Rembowski

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-372                             Page 4

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

Mark P. Kostak

90 Lexington Avenue

Torrington, CT 06790

 

Plainville Board of Education

c/o Atty. Robert A. Michalik

Eisenberg, Anderson, Michalik and Lynch

136 West Main Street

P. O. Box 2950

New Britain, CT 06050

 

                                                                             

                                                Debra L. Rembowski

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission